{"id":"full_commission-H003228-2024-04-09","awcc_number":"H003228","decision_date":"2024-04-09","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Kimberly Parker","employer_name":"Nidec Motor Corp","title":"PARKER VS. NIDEC MOTOR CORP. AWCC# H003228 APRIL 9, 2024","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["neck","shoulder","cervical"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Parker_Kimberly_H003228_20240409.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Parker_Kimberly_H003228_20240409.pdf","text_length":8585,"full_text":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION \n \nBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \nCLAIM NO.  H003228 \n \nKIMBERLY PARKER, EMPLOYEE  CLAIMANT \n \nNIDEC MOTOR CORP., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nTRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY,  RESPONDENT \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA  \n \nOPINION FILED APRIL 9, 2024 \n \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by the HONORABLE DAVID L. SCHNEIDER, \nAttorney at Law, Fayetteville, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by the HONORABLE GUY A. WADE, Attorney at \nLaw, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nDecision of Administrative Law Judge:  Affirmed and Adopted. \n \nOPINION AND ORDER \n Claimant appeals an opinion and order of the Administrative Law \nJudge filed November 7, 2023.  In said order, the Administrative Law Judge \nmade the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: \n1. The stipulations agreed to by the parties at the pre-hearing \nconference conducted on May 8, 2023, and contained in a Pre-\nhearing Order filed May 9, 2023, are hereby accepted as fact. \n \n2. The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the \nevidence that she sustained a compensable injury to her neck on \nor about October 2, 2019.  \n \n\n \nPARKER - H003228  2\n  \n \n \n3. The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the \nevidence her entitlement to medical treatment for her alleged \nneck injury.  \n \n4. The claimant has failed to prove her entitlement to additional \nmedical treatment for her compensable right shoulder injury. \n \n5. The claimant has failed to prove her entitlement to \nreimbursement for out-of-pocket medical expenses regarding \nboth her alleged neck injury and her admittedly compensable \nright shoulder injury. \n \n6. The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the \nevidence that she is entitled to temporary total disability benefits \nfrom March 3, 2021, to a date yet to be determined.  \n \n7. The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the \nevidence  that her attorney is entitled to an attorney’s fee. \n \n We have carefully conducted a de novo review of the entire record \nherein and it is our opinion that the Administrative Law Judge's November \n7, 2023 decision is supported by a preponderance of the credible evidence, \ncorrectly applies the law, and should be affirmed.  Specifically, we find from \na preponderance of the evidence that the findings of fact made by the \nAdministrative Law Judge are correct and they are, therefore, adopted by \nthe Full Commission.  \n\n \nPARKER - H003228  3\n  \n \n \n Therefore we affirm and adopt the decision of the Administrative Law \nJudge, including all findings and conclusions therein, as the decision of the \nFull Commission on appeal.  \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n    ___________________________________ \n    SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner \n \n \nCommissioner Willhite concurs and dissents. \nDISSENTING OPINION \nThe Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter referred to as “ALJ”) found \nthat the Claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she \nsustained a compensable injury to her neck on or about October 2, 2019, nor \ndid the Claimant prove she was entitled to additional medical treatment for \nher alleged neck injury or her compensable right shoulder injury.  Further, the \nALJ found that the Claimant failed to prove her entitlement to reimbursement \nfor  out-of-pocket  medical  expenses  regarding  both  her  alleged  neck  injury \nand compensable right shoulder injury, or temporary total disability benefits \nfrom March 3, 2021 to a date yet to be determined or attorney’s fees.  After \na de novo review, I concur in part and dissent in part.  I would rule in favor of \n\n \nPARKER - H003228  4\n  \n \n \nthe  Claimant  for  her  neck  injury  and  additional  medical  treatment  of  such \ninjury and concur with the rest of the ALJ’s findings.  \nTo establish a compensable injury by a preponderance of the \nevidence the Claimant must prove: (1) an injury arising out of and in the \ncourse of employment; (2) that the injury caused internal or external harm \nto the body which required medical services or resulted in disability or \ndeath; (3) medical evidence supported by objective findings, as defined in \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-102(16), establishing the injury; and (4) that the injury \nwas caused by a specific and identifiable time and place of occurrence.  A \ncompensable injury must be established by medical evidence supported by \nobjective findings and medical opinions addressing compensability must be \nstated within a degree of medical certainty.  Smith-Blair, Inc. v. Jones, 77 \nArk. App. 273, 72 S.W.3d 560 (2002). \n An  employer  shall  promptly  provide  for  an  injured  employee  such \nmedical  treatment as may  be  reasonably necessary  in  connection with  the \ninjury received by the employee.  Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-508(a).  Reasonable \nand necessary medical services may include those necessary to accurately \ndiagnose  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  compensable  injury;  to  reduce  or \nalleviate symptoms resulting from the compensable injury; or to maintain the \nlevel of healing achieved; or to prevent further deterioration of the damage \n\n \nPARKER - H003228  5\n  \n \n \nproduced by the compensable injury.  Jordan v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 51 Ark. \nApp. 100, 911 S.W.2d 593 (1995).  \n On October 2, 2019, Claimant was moving four ten-pound coils from \na table in front of her to a table behind her when she felt a pop in her neck \nand   shoulder.   The   parties   stipulated   that   the   Claimant   suffered   a \ncompensable right shoulder injury.  However, medical treatment failed to  fully \nalleviate  the  symptoms.  The  Claimant  contended  that  she  also  sustained \ninjuries  to  her  neck.  The  ALJ  found  that  there  was  a  derangement  in  the \nClaimant’s cervical spine, but that there was insufficient proof of a causal \nconnection to the work accident.  I disagree and find that this conclusion fails \nto fully consider the medical evidence in the record.  \n Claimant testified in the hearing with the ALJ that she told her medical \nproviders about her neck difficulties and there are mentions of neck pain in \nthe Claimant’s medical records along with Claimant’s compensable shoulder \ninjury.  (Hearing Transcript page 35 Line 7, and Cl. Ex. 1 p. 48).  Claimant \nunderwent right shoulder surgery with Dr. Cordell on September 30, 2020 for \nher  compensable  right  shoulder  injury.    (Cl.  Ex.  1  p.  40-41).    Dr.  Cordell \nopined that Claimant’s scapular pain “may be related to c spine pathology.” \n(Cl. Ex. 1 p. 48).  Claimant’s authorized physician, Dr. Timothy Garlow noted \non  May  10,  2021  and  January  16,  2023  that  Claimant  was  suffering  from \n\n \nPARKER - H003228  6\n  \n \n \nperiscapular pain related to underlying cervical issues.  (Cl. Ex. 1. p. 54-56, \n60).  Claimant  underwent  an  MRI  on  February  3,  2023  which  showed \nobjective  medical  findings  in  the  cervical  spine  including  a  disc  protrusion, \nand posterior spurring protrusions.  (Cl. Ex. 1. p. 62).  \n Claimant suffered an admittedly compensable injury to her shoulder \nas a result of her work-related accident on October 2, 2019.  Dr. Cordell \nidentified that Claimant’s scapular pain may be related to cervical spine \npathology placing Claimant at maximum medical improvement with no \nimpairment for her shoulder.  (Cl. Ex. 1, p. 48).  Claimant’s shoulder injury \nhad been fully-treated but no alleviation of the symptoms occurred. \nClaimant was then evaluated by Dr. Garlow who found objective medical \nfindings of an injury in Claimant’s cervical spine.  In consideration of \nClaimant’s consistent complaints of symptoms in the shoulder and cervical \nareas, and the identification of a clearly objective cervical injury, I find that \nthere is sufficient causal connection between the work accident and the \ncervical injury.  Therefore, Claimant’s cervical injury should be deemed a \ncompensable injury for which she should receive additional medical \ntreatment that is reasonable and necessary.  \n  \n\n \nPARKER - H003228  7\n  \n \n \nTherefore,   I   find   that   the   Claimant   proved   she   sustained   a \ncompensable cervical injury for which she is entitled to additional reasonable \nand necessary medical treatment.  Based upon the evidence in the record I \nconcur with the remainder of the ALJ’s findings.  \n For the foregoing reasons, I concur in part and dissent in part. \n \n    ___________________________________ \n  M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner","preview":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H003228 KIMBERLY PARKER, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT NIDEC MOTOR CORP., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, RESPONDENT INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA OPINION FILED APRIL 9, 2024 Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock,...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:45.744Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H003228-2024-04-09","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Parker_Kimberly_H003228_20240409.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}